I’m not happy about it, but I back Obama in saying, ‘fine, we’ll consider offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy strategy that inspires our nation.’ Of course there’s the danger of compromising now leading to compromising later and so-on, but that’s only if you see this as a battle that’s going to be uphill the whole way. I don’t think we’re going to have to fight tooth and claw for every inch of our path to a just and sustainable society. I think that certain systems are already, or will soon be growing and changing the nature of energy on their own. The goal is to get the boulder up and over the hill so it can start rolling on its own. Lets keep our eyes on that prize.

Furthermore, you seem to be saying that since the American public has bought into the notion that more drilling will bring down higher energy prices that we should just accept that. That we must work within the confines of the public perception that the GOP spin machine has created. Clearly the reason people have concluded that more drilling equals lower prices is because the GOP spin machine has “informed” them that it will. I have already stated that this isn’t just about the facts and disseminating correct information.

The reason folks are entertaining this notion is because we haven’t articulated a straightforward, positive vision for addressing these issues in a way that doesn’t include more of the same. The public is being forced to choose a very far-from-perfect “something” over “nothing.” And the GOP is doing a good job of dismissing the Dem. energy plan as nothing more than tire gauges.

The only part of the current scenario that will result in the Dems “loosing the energy debate” is giving into the Gang of 10/”all of the above” crowds. Any perception of “reality” that suggests we have to continue to accept the fossil fuels that are being shoved down our throats disregards our need and the current opportunity to move into a truly new era of energy production.

The way I see it, we can either choose to be visionary and inspiring here or we can let the GOP drag us down a new generation of oil wells.

Let’s deal with reality by changing the reality.

I don’t think this type of cyncism — and the politics of wheeling, dealing and manipulation that emerge from it — are something the “american public” are going to accept.

I don’t think this type of cyncism — and the politics of wheeling, dealing and manipulation that emerge from it — are something the “american public” are not going to accept.

Sorry to say, Colin, but what you’re saying here is just the classical liberal reaction to these kind of issues: “We just need to inform the public!” It’s not going to work. And if Democrats lose the energy debate — the debate of century — we could see massive implications for November and for the future. And forget climate legislation — if Republicans can beat Democrats on new oil drilling, they will destroy us on policy that tries to increase energy prices.

There’s an old saying that applies well here: “Deal with reality — or reality will deal with you.”

It is unacceptable for us to accept $84 billion in limited support for clean energy and hand over the golden goose to Republicans and the dirty energy industry. There is ultimately no reason we should trade anything for funding for CTL and nukes.

As far as what Democrats should do:

With regard to the “Gang of 10″ the only tenable response for Democrats who wish to address this particular proposal seems to be to wait for it to be introduced and work to drastically improve the proposal in committee and on the floor by scrapping the dirty fuel subsidies.

With regard to the elections, I think there is tremendous public support to be gained by exposing these “Gang of 10″ and “all of the above” proposals as scams promulgated by Republicans who desperately want to maintain the status quo. As far as drilling in particular, exposing the oil companies’ manipulation offers the same opportunity to gain public support.

We know that the Republicans run a well-honed, well oiled (no pun intended) public relations/distortion machine. The facts that offshore drilling is a false solution to our energy problems are well established, but facts are only of secondary importance (if that) in PR spin. Democrats need to stand up to this attempt to hoodwink the American public into swallowing this messy proposal, they need to show resolve and not give in to browbeating and other disingenuous attempts to allow more drilling, more mountain top removal, more of the same.

I’m not exactly sure of what the terms of a fair compromise would look like, but the industries that have dominated for the past several decades (at the expense of the climate, public health, etc.) do not deserve tremendous additional support in this transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources. They have tremendous capital available to help them transition. But perhaps the proper compromise in the “Gang of 10″ proposal is the funding to help the automakers transition, even though they have stalled and opposed increased efficiency. A short term solution might be to repeal the oil company subsidies and use them for public rebates for high gas prices, mass transit vouchers, etc. while we speed up the calendar on the CAFE increase and strive for 40 or 50 mpg instead of 35.

To be honest, while it is clear that the “Gang of 10″ proposal is gaining some traction, it is also receiving tremendous criticism from conservatives. If you have some time to spare, check out this transcript of a Limbaugh radio show a few days ago http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080808/content/01125112.guest.html

To me, that suggests that this legislation will have a tough time getting passed as is. Many won’t support it because of the giveaways to the oil, coal, and nuke industries, and others won’t support it because of the $84 billion bone the proposal throws to alternatives. I hope that we haven’t arrived at an impasse, but I also oppose acquiescing to the false solutions offered in these proposals.

I understand the need to compromise in order to advance clean energy, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept any proposal that is offered in exchange for the things we want. We must be discerning in our willingness to compromise and realize that we might actually be giving up much more than we’re getting in return.

The “Gang of 10″ proposal attempts appear “balanced” by tying minimal support for a few real solutions to a smorgasbord of public financing for dirty fossil fuels. While all of the numbers haven’t been fleshed out enough by the “Gang of 10″ to do a dollar for dollar comparison of support for clean energy vs. dirty fossil fuels and nukes, it is plainly clear that the proposal falls far short of anything resembling a balanced approach.

This suite of false solutions is mirrored in the House by the “all of the above” crowd (which you seem to allude to above), many of whom are filibustering in the dark during the August recess with calls for Congress to return and vote on offshore drilling. But they don’t just want drilling either–they also want to provide funding for and otherwise enable liquid coal and other dirty fuels.

The Center for American Progress (no, I don’t work for them) concludes that many of the House members who are coordinating this drumbeat for offshore drilling have failed to support clean energy at almost every opportunity.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/renewablevotes/renewablevotes.html

The “Gang of 10″ and the “all of the above” folks aren’t interested in a real compromise that helps us to address high energy prices, achieve energy independence or advance clean energy solutions to global warming in a meaningful way. Their attempts are about appeasing us with peanuts while dirty energy companies walk away with more loot for their coffers.